Evaluate or discriminate? Why job descriptions matter

I was interviewed by "Inside Housing" magazine for an interesting piece published last Friday titled "What's in a name?"

A small Housing Association in High Wycombe, called "Red Kite" had asked its staff to write its own job descriptions and create their own job titles.

The belief behind this is that social housing organisations tend to be "stuffy" and "hierarchical" and need to empower their staff to improve services. A view to be honest that I have more than a little sympathy with.

However, in the  article I admitted to being a bit of a "sourpuss" about this idea. While workers need to be at the centre of any consultation about job design or job descriptions, it is actually a complex and difficult subject. As a trade union steward "I have seen real problems where there have been poorly defined job descriptions,’ he adds. ‘People are paid very different amounts of money for doing very similar jobs".

This is a huge issue if you believe in gender equality at work.  It can be prescriptive and a little bureaucratic but the hard truth of the matter is that unless you have an equality proofed job evaluation system, based on job descriptions you will see women (and other discriminated minorities) being paid less for equal work. As sure as eggs is eggs.

There has been a move recently away from such assessments towards "spot salaries" or so called "market rates". While market rates have been used as a defence against equal pay claims, it is not by any means a complete defence. "Market rates" can be inherently unfair (and therefore potentially unlawful) since they just reinforce any existing gender discrimination in the market.

Equal pay claims have cost employers in the public sector hundreds of millions of pounds in recent years. When it first started no-one expected this. The private and "not for profit" sector had better watch out since it is clear from the press (Supermarket giant ASDA has 1500 claims against it) that the "no win, no fee" lawyers are going after them.

So evaluate or discriminate. If you do discriminate then be prepared to pay the price in reputational and financial terms.

Job descriptions really do matter.

(picture of striking women machinists working for Fords as portrayed later in the film "Made in Dagenham")

When the going gets tough the discrimination starts flowing...”

Guest Post by Anjona Roy from UNISON Northampshire Country branch.

"For the past six years I have worked for Northamptonshire Rights and Equality Council, a small local charity that provides advice and representation to victims of discrimination. In the last few months, I like many others in local community and voluntary organisations have been trying to bring in as much funding as possible in order that our services still exist after this month for the coming financial year.

With young people, families and pensioners facing a tougher and tougher future in Con-Dem Britain, the need to easily accessible, accurate and timely advice is greater than ever. The bed rock of community based advice provision has always been the citizens advice movement. Often the advice consists of signposting and it is relatively infrequent that the advice involves ongoing casework. These organisations are supported with a national infrastructure and the majority of work that they pick up tends to be fixing errors and screw ups by social housing, the benefits agency and benefits sections of local government. The mainstream community and voluntary advice sector thus spends significant proportions of its resources in helping public services deliver to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. It’s a really good argument for the need of government and local authorities to invest in advice. However, the argument doesn’t translate when you start discussing discrimination advice.

Despite the fact that our organisation has been delivering discrimination advice for the past thirty years, discussions with local authorities in our area clearly indicate that supporting individuals when they experience discrimination, isn’t what they want to invest in. They would rather things not get that far. They would rather that local businesses, local services did not discriminate and then no formal action, no challenge, would ever have to be endured. This all comes from a view of the world that people don’t generally act unfairly or want to act in a way that is unfair and that most of the time when discrimination happens it is due to misunderstanding and the services and employers just need that little bit of extra assistance to ensure that their equality practice is positive and legally compliant. A view echoed by the Government Equalities Office review of the Equality and Human Rights Commission last year.

Tell that to victims of discrimination and see what the response is. Tell that to the catering manager who was told by her supervisor “If you were my dog I would have you put down”, who was told that she was made redundant and then later saw her own job being advertised on the company website. Tell that to the Eastern European baker who’s manager told her that he “only employed Polish idiots”.
When the going gets tough the discrimination starts flowing and most of the time it has little to do with mis-understanding. It has more to do with the abuse of service delivery or employment relationships in a context of a basic lack of respect for human beings and their rights to fairness. This is very far removed from getting the delivery of public services to work well and this approach has very high levels of expectation from organisations that government still view as needing to publically demonstrate commitment to the general duty requiring:

Eliminat[ion of] unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act.
Advance[ment] equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
Foster[ing] good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

If this was so easy, then why require the general duty under the Equality act 2011. There’s also a requirement to “publish information demonstrating compliance with the general duty under the equality act” by 31st January 2012. From a quick scan of the public bodies operating where I live only 20% have complied with this requirement and even those that have reported, haven’t all reported on both workforce and the delivery of services. So much for the positive hearts and minds of those responsible for the delivery of public bodies and their commitment to comply with legal requirements. 

The truth is that when it comes to equality, the growth in capacity has been the in the knowledge of how to discriminate and not leave tracks to enable action to be taken by a complainant. In the current economic climate there has been an exponential growth in employers offering contracts with working hours being detailed as 0-37 hours per week. With this kind of a contract unless there is an out and out admission that discrimination is taking place employers are quite within their rights to no longer offer work to the woman who has just found out that she is pregnant or the disabled worker who’s role had changed and requires an additional reasonable adjustment. The truth is that discrimination is about whether one group of people matter more than another and how many of us are willing to stand up and be counted when the chips are down.
If you are one of those who want to stand up and be counted please sign the petition on this link. 
You can also join the sounds off for justice campaign and try and protect access to legal aid here
and join the Justice for All campaign to protect free local legal advice. 

"Union Busters" and Cranberry Fools

Check out this post on "Stronger Unions" about Derby based Cranberry Foods (Poultry) hiring  USA "Union busters" the Burke Group and the intimidation of workers.

Why on earth are Cranberry Foods hiring union busters? 

It is an absolute human right to belong to a trade union and for that union to collectively bargain with the employer. 

Frankly, while I accept that I don't exactly know first hand what is going on in Cranberry - any organisation that refuses to recognise trade unions and/or to bargain with them - are in my view just the same as those who discriminate on any other basis such as race, gender or disability.

"Modern Day Slavery" UK 2010

I am amazed that this completely illegal and despicable behaviour by a British company towards migrant workers has not been more widely reported. Or perhaps not - since reporting about employers, who ignore the minimum wage, discriminate against foreign workers and want to get rid of employment rights could be seen as unfairly promoting Conservative Party economic policies?

Check out the EHRC press release here

"Polish students awarded £25,000 in discrimination and unfair dismissal case 06.04.10

Two Polish workers have been awarded a total of £25,000 in an employment tribunal case against a Perthshire fruit picking company. The tribunal found against David Leslie Fruits on the grounds of race discrimination, dismissal for asserting a statutory right and unlawful deductions from wages. Central Scotland Racial Equality Council (CSREC) were able to provide the successful claimants with legal representation using legal grant funding from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Commission fund CSREC to provide advice and representation relating to discrimination.

Polish students Michal Obieglo and Tomasz Kowal lived on-site at David Leslie's Scones Lethendy farm last summer. During the hearing, the Tribunal heard evidence about the horrendous conditions the students were housed in during their time at the farm, sleeping in a converted metal container with no running water, and sharing twelve showers between almost 200 people. Additionally, there were discrepancies relating to rates of pay, underpayment of wages, incorrect payslips and incorrect deduction of tax.

When Mr Obieglo and Mr Kowal approached David Leslie on behalf of their colleagues with their concerns, they were threatened with dismissal and given a written warning. Mr Obieglo and Mr Kowal contacted the Citizen's Advice Bureau in Perth and continued to raise their concerns with their co- workers. They presented a petition to David Leslie with 145 signatories on it and were dismissed that day, allegedly for stealing fruit.

This accusation was without foundation and prompted a general strike. David Leslie then gave a personal pledge that the concerns of his employees would be addressed, and Mr Obieglo and Mr Kowal were re-instated. However, the next day, both men were asked to report to David Leslie's office, where they were met by police officers and escorted from the premises. Their belongings were withheld until they had bought a bus ticket to Edinburgh.

In the written judgement, Employment Judge Hosie said: 'There is no doubt that the discrimination in this case was serious. It caused the claimants' considerable distress, leaving them at one point in the situation where they feared they would be left stranded and homeless in a foreign country with no money to get home, or even imprisoned for an offence which had been fabricated. Their hopes of spending a pleasant summer picking fruit in Scotland and earning some money to assist with their University educations turned into a nightmare. They were treated appallingly, without any common decency or respect, and left frightened and humiliated.'

CSREC caseworker Richard Pitts described his clients' treatment as 'modern day slavery'. He added:
'Mr Leslie would not have dared treat Scottish people the way he treated my clients. He thought he could get away with it because they were Polish and didn't know their rights. That was the reason the Tribunal found his actions to constitute race discrimination'

Ros Micklem, Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland Director said: 'This case highlights the clear mistreatment and exploitation that migrant workers can face. Too often workers from overseas are treated badly, on the assumption that they will simply put up with substandard conditions and illegal pay. We hope that it sends out an important message to employers in Scotland. Discriminating against people because of their race or nationality is not only wrong it can also lead to tough financial consequences.'

Mr Obieglo said 'The reason I want people to hear about my experiences is so that other foreign workers know their rights and know how to assert them - I want to be an example for people to follow.'

Picture “Brothers of the Sun” by Luana Boutilier which is about fellow exploited fruit pickers. 

Hat-tip thingy Col. Roi.

HR admits to discriminating over mental health?

This press release from the professional HR “trade body” is worth a look for all trade unionists. What I found particularly notable is that a fifth of HR respondents admit to unlawful discrimination against those who disclose a mental health condition! I wonder what the CIPD/ Commission for Equality and Human Rights (and unions) are doing about this?

Good news about importance of pensions!

CIPD press release
Top 5 CIPD Poll Results, 2009

Every week the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) conduct a poll on its website asking members a topical question, attracting an average of 1,000 responses. Today the CIPD publishes the top 5 poll results of 2009:

21st September 2009
The ECJ has ruled workers taken ill on holiday can claim back sick leave. Will you:
Welcome ruling - 14%
Trust staff not to take advantage - 30%
Consider tightening sick pay policies - 56%

5th October 2009
Does your organisation hire applicants who have disclosed a mental health condition?
Yes - 79%
No - 21%

19th October 2009
Is there still a business case for offering a pension to your employees?
Yes - 88%
No - 6%
Sometimes - 6%

16th November 2009
What do you think of the Government's proposal to phase out tax relief on childcare vouchers from 2011?
Agree - 15%
Disagree - 85%

14th December 2009
How much 'absenteeism' happened/do you expect the day after workplace Christmas parties?
None, they are held on Fridays - 49%
A little - 31%
A lot - 5%
We don't have parties - 15%

Notes to Editors
• The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) is Europe's largest HR and development professional body with over 135,000 members, supporting and developing those responsible for the management and development of people within organisations

Teachers on the cheap

Back from holiday, so apologies for the intermittent posts and lack of response to comments. Pleased to see in recent Times Educational Supplement (TES) that the Government is finally telling schools to pay support staff “fair” wages and stop them being used to teach lessons they are not qualified to take.

The abuse and latent discrimination of overwhelmingly female classroom assistants by many schools and local education authorities is a national disgrace.

Unlike this report from The Times – fully qualified teacher assistants (with a two year diploma) can start on as little as £9,500 per year (not £15,000). Surprise, surprise very few men can afford to become assistants and schools rely on women who are desperate for jobs that fit in with their care commitments.

Check out the UNISON argument on BBC news

This is of course “guidance” so when schools inevitably ignore this (as they have to date all previous guidance), the Government will "of course" move in and legislate (please do so Gordon).